followupboss-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all team inboxes' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there's pagination, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list operation with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with many similar sibling tools, it lacks context about what 'team inboxes' specifically are and how they differ from other resources. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return format, but doesn't.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. The baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there's no need to explain what doesn't exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List all team inboxes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('team inboxes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listTeams' or 'listInboxAppInstallations', which could cause confusion about what specific resource type is being listed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list tools (listTeams, listInboxAppInstallations, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes team inboxes from other listable resources or when this specific listing operation is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.